'Why Roy Whiting is not killer'

The jury in the Sarah Payne murder trial was told today they did not have to like Roy Whiting but merely judge him fairly.

In her closing speech, Sally O'Neill QC, defending, warned the panel of nine men and three women of the dangers of "demonising" Whiting solely because he was suspected of abducting and murdering the eight-year-old girl.

As Sarah's parents Sara and Michael Payne watched from the public gallery, Miss O'Neill outlined 10 key points that she said proved that Whiting did not do it.

? Whiting removed the wood pannelling from his white van. The Crown says this was to destroy evidence of Sarah's presence. Miss O'Neill said Whiting had already told the previous owner of the van he was going to take out the wood because it made the van cramped.

? He changed the van doors to alter its appearance after the abduction. She said that he needed to make the van more secure because he stored his tools in it overnight.

? The allegation Whiting had "steam-cleaned" himself after the attack. A witness made no mention of it in his first statement to the police. It only cropped up after the discovery of Sarah's body which may have "skewed his recollection".

?Whiting's suspicious movements on the day Sarah went missing. Instead of giving a detailed explanation of driving to parks in Hove, Whiting - if he was guilty - could have told the police he had stayed at home and watched TV, she said.

?The diesel receipt found in his van which showed he was on the A29 close to Sarah's burial site on the night she went missing. If he was guilty why did he ask for and keep that receipt?

?Whiting did not ask police when Sarah had been abducted. They had told him it was Saturday evening.

?Whiting was seen removing items from his van, the Crown claims, that could have been the checked shirt worn by the kidnapper. If so, why didn't he also remove other clothes - later found to bear forensic links to Sarah - and the diesel receipt?

? Whiting failed to ask police what had happened to Sarah. This was "unfair" because his solicitor had already been made aware of the situation and would have told him.

? The suspicious items found in Whiting's van. The spade was not the one used to dig Sarah's grave, the rope had already been in the van when he bought it, and there was no scientific evidence to show that the black plastic ties, masking tape, the baby oil and the knife played any part in the abduction or murder.

? Three scratches found on Whiting's upper body the day after the abduction. Each scratch was of a different age and cannot be proved to have been caused by Sarah, Miss O'Neill said.

She also told the jury to ignore the one billion to one DNA link of one of Sarah's hairs found on Whiting's red sweatshirt in his van because of possible contamination between exhibits.

Whiting, 42, a part-time mechanic and building labourer from Littlehampton, has pleaded not guilty to kidnapping and murdering Sarah in July last year.

She disappeared from a quiet country lane after playing with her two brothers and sister in a cornfield near her grandparents' home in Kingston Gorse, near Littlehampton, West Sussex.

Her naked body was discovered 16 days later, partially concealed in a field off the A29 near Pulborough, around 20 miles away.

Mr Justice Curtis is due to start his summing up at Lewes Crown Court on Monday.